Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

What changes should be made in the 1938 scenario? Options · View
Posted: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 2:00:33 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal2012 Good Cause Support Medal

Joined: 9/15/2010
Posts: 552
Location: Sweden
With the expansion FTML teh M community will probably get some love. Its very possible that we can influence how the 1938 scenario set up should look like or get a special MP version of it introduced into vanilla. (Yes, we can do it ourselves in a mod but I feel its better getting a more broad consensus of how games look across the entire MP community)

I would therefore like to ask you to post your input of what you need to see changed in the 1938 to balance it better for 1838

I am primarily talking about OOB forces and balance here. Names and other details are of less concern to me.

A few of these things have already been mentioned elsewhere.

- ITA TP place
- Exchange GER FGT for INT (Why do they even have them?)
- Give GER some more TACs They have fewer than in both 36 and 38 right?
- Exchange som UK MOT for regular INF
- Fewer SOV subs?

What else?
Posted: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 6:26:04 PM

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalAuthor of 9000th Post

Joined: 3/5/2007
Posts: 3,505
Location: guarding Democracy
- More IC to USA and USSR (600 effective at war for US, to off balance the early war conclusions, may be changed if we deal with a long war vs china)
- UK inherits parts or all of the commonwealth (maybe at different points of the game, but preferably very early)
- Move resources from UK to US, to offset it's greater IC stock, so it's more vulnerable to subs.
- offmap IC for China (as much as 50% or 100% more, also doubled resources and officers), doubled/tripled army size, but mostly militia?
- defense modifiers for terrain doubled (or tripled?)

In Soviet Russia, Schuermann defeats YOU!
Posted: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 6:32:09 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
its what i said in the other post.

First decide what we want. Then we can talk about balance.
If we want a FFA current setup doesnt need much par a few nerfs or boosts.

If we want a more "historical" game then we have to fix things a bit more.

1) think about practical levels at start and see how they are a cause for exploits at times - really scrap the possibility to get techs from other nations - usa can still afford uk tanks and other shit.... even i as japan could buy german paras...Crazy
2) think about laws which at one point allow the conquerer to have huge ammounts of mp, ic, resources and mp - like even 5% of the populace would be willing to join the conqueror, work efficiently in factories, research labs etc
3) think about the 38 game as a 1 v 1 alliance game (in terms of war entries so ussr cant pull in usa so easily).
4) Make sure units cant be moved about so easily - esp air assets. Make airports easier to build (non linear) but limit ammount of planes that can be based there at 1 time (like cags on carriers).
5) bog down japan a bit longer in china but push back usa war building - as frankly by mid 1940 they have so many land units and ships that if they are not "suprised" attacked by japan, japan can hardly have any push in that area as all islands have tanks on them... :/.
Posted: Thursday, February 24, 2011 1:00:09 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/3/2009
Posts: 588
Location: Texas
Germany has MRF to represent the ME110's that failed over Britain but were still used against enemy bombers as it had more firepower than bf109.

Lets see how the war in the east goes before messing with things too much.

Too me, early entry of USA is good trade off for Japan not being stuck in China.

Unrealistic to have SU gobbling up all its neighbors and France and UK focusing on Germany. Wish the game was such that if SU does, then UK/USA must stop them, but that is utopian I know.

So, rather than messing with much of the stuff, I think we need to see how strong SU is this game and then talk about what should be considered acceptable expansion for all sides before the 'real war'.

Early entry of USA is not a big deal, it has a navy, but if you build a lot of ground units early you don't have the MP to bring them up to full strength. Of course if Japan takes Guam, that solves some of teh MP issues for USA, and is probably a good trade for US.

Posted: Thursday, February 24, 2011 1:52:34 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
in relation to this game i think the japan suprise attack worked out well in terms of balance. USA was just starting to move its troops and I couldnt wait even though I was not ready.
Its v hard to attack a well fortified island and if they are well orged and mobilised its nearly impossible. USA was caught a bit off guard - still it did manage to hold on to hawaii and helped defend india for nearly 1 year. note the ammount of troops it already has. Dump them in germany and axis will be hard pressed.

Indeed it would be great if this happend at least in 1940, best if in 1941 but with so much hindsight and engine issues japan wouldnt stand much of a chance. All usa needs to do is fortify some of the forward islands at minimal costs to its ic and concentrate the rest of its potential on germany. There is not much way to balance that.. if we can think of a way to motivate both usa and japan to concentrate more on each other (esp usa on japan) then this game would be much better in the long run if we want to see 1943+. If they do change the limits on airports then island defence will be much harder and attacking fleets wont get ponded so much by non stop rotateing stacks of defending planes from all alliances. Add to that no buying of tanks, planes, ships and usa even early on will have worse troops thus not be able to launch off. just defend which it should for 1 year min from japan. Maybe even lower officer rates for usa at start..

BTW if you do include plane limits on airports then make sure that ai + human dont count in those terms as the ai has a tendency to sit in my airports and do shit.
Posted: Thursday, February 24, 2011 2:43:17 PM
 Pilus prior

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 8/1/2009
Posts: 1,097
Location: Up north (cet+1)
I still think best way to curtail that 'planes flying around the world' would be to somehow slow the rebase mission, like 'reverse strategic redployment', to represent movement of ground support along with the planes (not to mention make those 'fly around half the world' impractical)...
...sure it'd be nice if the rebasing was the slower the further the planes went, but I don't hold much hope seeing that, so just 'generally slower rebasing' would make me happy.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Which is a problem, if you are powerless.
Users browsing this topic

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.0 (NET v2.0) - 10/10/2006
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2005-2007 Daniel "Lord Ederon" Scibrany. All rights reserved.